Rowland v. Tucker
Decision Date | 08 March 2019 |
Docket Number | 2170928 |
Parties | Allison ROWLAND v. Richard TUCKER, Mike Gunnells, Henry Scheuer, Mark Wise, and William Kruse, as trustees of the Beasley Spring Acres Neighborhood Improvement Trust |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Micheal S. Jackson of Webster, Henry, Bradwell, Cohan, Speagle & DeShazo, P.C., Montgomery, for appellant.
Tazewell T. Shepard III and Tazewell T. Shepard IV of Sparkman, Shepard & Morris, P.C., Huntsville, for appellees.
The underlying dispute concerns real property located in an unincorporated area of Madison County referred to as Beasley Spring Acres ("BSA"). Allison Rowland, the owner of parcel 49 of BSA, appeals from a November 16, 2017, order entered by the Madison Circuit Court purporting to enforce a May 1, 2008, judgment entered by that court as to the properties composing BSA. The motion to enforce the May 2008 judgment was filed by Richard Tucker, Mike Gunnells, Henry Scheuer, Mark Wise, and William Kruse, as trustees ("the trustees") of the Beasley Spring Acres Neighborhood Improvement Trust ("the trust").
As hereinafter discussed, the November 2017 order is void. A void order will not support an appeal. Johnson v. Hetzel, 100 So.3d 1056, 1057 (Ala. 2012). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
In June 2005, Tucker, Kruse, and Scheuer, individually, commenced an action seeking to prevent Hun Es Tu Malade? # 6, LLC, David J. Slyman, Jr., and Todd J. Slyman from developing two parcels of property located in BSA for commercial purposes, specifically from constructing and operating a discount drugstore. See Hun Es Tu Malade? # 16, LLC v. Tucker, 963 So.2d 55 (Ala. 2006).
963 So.2d at 57. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, agreeing with the circuit court's conclusions that the parcels at issue were part of a common scheme of development and that the parcels were subject to restrictive covenants against commercial development. Id. at 68.
On May 1, 2008, the circuit court entered a final judgment in the 2006 action. The May 2008 judgment incorporated a settlement agreement, a copy of which was appended to the judgment as "Appendix A,"3 and dismissed the 2006 action, with prejudice, "[s]ubject to the provisions of the Final Order and Judgment." Based on the terms of the settlement agreement, it appears (1) that the parties who participated in Hun Es Tu Malade decided to compromise the rights accruing to them or duties imposed upon them, respectively, as a result of the judgment entered in that case and (2) that those parties and the members of the class agreed to a compromise as to disputes and potential disputes between them, specifically as to the existence of a common scheme of development for the properties composing BSA and the existence and enforceability of certain restrictive covenants as to those properties.
The May 2008 judgment states that "the Settlement is binding on all Plaintiffs, Class Members and Defendants, as well as each of their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns." The May 2008 judgment further states:
The settlement agreement further provides, in pertinent part:
"Following entry of the Final Approval Order, any Class Member, Defendant, or Plaintiff held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be in violation of this Settlement or the Final Approval Order shall be responsible for paying all court costs and the reasonable attorneys' fees of the party or parties seeking to enforce the provisions of this Settlement or Final...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rowland v. Sparkman, Shepard & Morris, P.C.
...granting the motion to enforce the 2008 judgment and requiring Rowland to pay the law firm's fees was void. See Rowland v. Tucker, 286 So. 3d 713 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019).Page 3 On September 20, 2019, Rowland filed a complaint against the law firm, the trustees, and the trust. Rowland asserted......
-
Rowland v. Sparkman, Shepard & Morris, P.C.
...granting the motion to enforce the 2008 judgment and requiring Rowland to pay the law firm's fees was void. See Rowland v. Tucker, 286 So. 3d 713 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019).On September 20, 2019, Rowland filed a complaint against the law firm, the trustees, and the trust. Rowland asserted a clai......